John Newman did a program on PBS Frontline, which, of course, is government television, in which he talked of the Mexico City story as being a CIA operation which included Oswald impostors and fake Oswald phone calls, resulting in phony recordings of what was supposed to be Oswald.
That is a heck of a lot to admit. If the whole operation was a CIA operation, as Newman claimed, that used phony Oswald visitors to the embassies and phony Oswalds on the phone, then why assume anything about it was real? Most importantly, why assume that Oswald was there at all? They did not capture a photograph of him despite surveillance that was, reportedly, constant. They certainly didn't capture his voice in a recording, not once. And, Oswald himself denied going there. And when you are being accused of killing the President of the United States, as he was, it seems unlikely that he would lie to the police, at that time, about having gone to Mexico City.
So, why didn't John Newman emphasize more strongly the likelihood and probability that Oswald didn't go there? I'll tell you why:
It's because John Newman is a politically correct CT. After all, they let him on PBS Frontline. Again, that is government television. He also gave that address on C-Span, which is mainstream media.
So, why do they allow him on these venues? It's because they are OK with what he says. But, they would NOT be OK with him saying that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, so, he doesn't say it.
I liken John Newman to Philip Shenon, who wrote A Cruel and Shocking Act, which I read and reviewed. Like Newman, Shenon puts a lot of emphasis on the Mexico City trip. Unlike Newman, Shenon does not recognize any possibility that Oswald didn't go there, and he maintains that Oswald may have gotten some support and encouragement to kill Kennedy while there, which is ridiculous when you consider that, supposedly, Oswald only got the job at the Depository through happenstance- Ruth Paine, the neighbor ladies, tea and crumpets, etc. So, Shenon is just an idiot. But, he's another example of someone who supposedly disputes the official story but is still welcomed at mainstream venues.
I've been saying for a long time that the CIA wants to run the JFK conspiracy movement. They want to occupy it with their people and give it their agenda. And their agenda is to play up the idea that Oswald was deeply involved with them: the CIA. It's all been greatly exaggerated. But, I'm sure they have their reasons for playing it up, as they are doing. Recall the rumor that Oswald's name had been etched into the CIA Wall of Heroes. That was a ruse, but where did it come from? I wouldn't be surprised if it came from the CIA.
So, John Newman can do his thing and be treated well by the Establishment so long as he doesn't cross the line. Saying, definitively, that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City would cross the line, so he doesn't say it.